On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:16:14 +0200, James Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
About right except there is a mechanism in the W3C work for adding new
values, which don't make it non-conforming. Given that people are
pretty inventive, I think that is quite valuable. YMMV
I don't see the point; if someone makes a value up and UAs don't support
it then it is worthless, if UAs do support it then it should become part
of the next HTML spec. I can't imagine how auto-discovery of new widget
types would work (maybe I should read the RDF Taxonomy spec but I can't
stomach it),
Yes, if you want to know how this is expected to work I guess you should.
The benefit is that it might be 8 months between new specs, and 8 days
between new inventions and people suffering because they have no way to
use them, and an auto-discovery mechanism that doesn't always rely on
writing a new spec would be an improvement on that.
and I can't think of any similar auto-discovery technology that is
widely by authors. I guess allowing a predefined list of values and
vendor extensions like role="ms-ribbon" might be a suitable compromise
between innovation and ease of use.
The RDF solution at least provides for a workable auto-discovery
mechanism. Which means that vendors don't just spend their time chasing
down other vendors' extensions manually. I'm not sure that the gap between
the two is worthwhile. In principle I would rather see things invalid than
magic lists. In practice I suspecting I am making water towards the
oncoming wind - vendors would do it anyway - which is why I support the
RDF thing.
(Plus I am one of those people who can write RDF easily, or find a tool to
do it for me, but cannot stomach anything that says "first just write a
script"...)
Cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
